Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this week I made a very difficult decision in voting for H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. I have been deeply moved by my constituents from both sides of the issue, including individuals with strong family ties to the Middle East. I want to take this opportunity to share my thoughts behind voting in support of the legislation.

In January 2006, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization that does not recognize the state of Israel and calls for an Islamized Palestinian state, won the legislative election to lead the PA government. Since then, the United States and the European Union have announced a series of measures designed to further isolate and pressure the Hamas-led Palestinian government until it recognizes Israel, renounces violence, and accepts previously signed Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.

Specifically, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently announced that the United States has begun to suspend over $400 million in direct aid to Hamas, while redirecting about $100 million from canceled projects to humanitarian assistance such as food and medicine distributed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The canceled aid includes: $45 million in direct aid to the PA; $130 million in infrastructure projects; $20 million in private enterprise development and revitalization, financial markets reform, trade programs and information technology sector support; $17 million in electoral, political party, local government and legislative support programs; $13 million in civil society development; $10 million in rule of law and judicial programs; $7 million in technical assistance and vocational training; $4 million in community policing, among others. Similarly, the EU Commission announced that it had halted payments to the Hamas government, freezing all direct aid to the PA and payment of public employees' salaries with EU funds through the World Bank, but not humanitarian aid through international and nongovernmental organizations. In the mean time, the Israeli government has cut off all ties with nearly all branches of the PA government, including its security. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared that his government will avoid meetings with visiting representatives or diplomats from PA.

I am in support of certain financial sanctions on Hamas to ensure no U.S. government funding goes directly to support terrorism activities. On February 15, 2006, I voted in favor of, and the House passed, S. Con. Res. 76, which expressed the sense of Congress that no United States assistance should be provided directly to the PA if the majority party in control of the PA parliament maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel. I believe it was a sensible resolution that called for an end of U.S. financial support of Hamas while allowing other forms of humanitarian aid to flow through NGOs to the Palestinian people.

The impact of cuts in aid is being felt by the PA. Omar Abdel-Razeq, Finance Minister of the PA, recently confirmed that the PA could not pay March and April salaries to about 140,000 government workers. These salaries support about one-third of the Palestinian population. These cuts in aid came on top of the fact that Gaza's economy is in dire straights, with average family income already below the U.N. poverty line. Economic conditions are also precipitously declining in the West Bank. Overall the PA shoulders a total debt of $1.3 billion, including $640 million to regional and local banks and making it virtually impossible for the PA to obtain new loans. Furthermore, Israel has decided to withhold $50 million a month in customs and tax receipts since January, although it continues to pay Israeli companies about $5.5 million a month from those receipts for the water and electricity used by the Palestinians. The Israeli government has also recently announced that it will buy drugs and medial equipments needed by Palestinian hospitals in Gaza out of the withheld funds.

Yet, despite the dire needs of Palestinians, Hamas has chosen to ignore reality in favor of its extremist commitment to terrorism.

On April 17 of this year, a suicide bomber struck in a Tel Aviv restaurant, killing nine Israelis and injured dozens. The suicide bombing was carried out by Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed extremist group that refuses to acknowledge the cease-fire followed by

Hamas. The Passover attack was a grotesque display of terrorism and violence, yet it was quickly defended by Hamas. Sami Abu Zuhri, the official spokesman for Hamas, stated at the time that the attack was ``a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes'' against Palestinians and that ``our people are in a state of self-defense and they have every right to use all means to defend themselves.'' It became clear to me that, without regards to the pressing needs of the Palestinian people, Hamas was ready to ignore its own cease-fire policy in favor of extremist political rhetoric that further isolate and weaken the PA and endangers the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people. It was a chilling reminder of Hamas' tendency to favor violence over peace and political posturing over progress, all at the expense of Palestinian people's welfare.

The Passover bombing and the Hamas response to the bombing was a turning point in my consideration and analysis of H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. I believe that a stronger message must be sent by the United States to Hamas that we will not support a government that continues to embrace terrorism. H.R. 4681 is an appropriate vehicle to send that message. The bill intensifies the pressure placed on the Hamas-led PA by not only restricting direct U.S. aid to the PA (which has already been suspended by Secretary Rice), but also restricting U.S. assistance to NGOs working in the West Bank and Gaza, subject to exceptions based on humanitarian needs. It expresses the sense of Congress that PA-controlled territories should be deemed as terrorist sanctuaries; denies visas to any PA officials or affiliated persons; and restricts the travel of any PA representative to the UN outside of a 25-mile radius of the U.N. headquarters building in New York City. Finally, the bill directs the President to prohibit international financial institutions from directly assisting a Hamas- led PA, and prohibits any U.S. officer or employee from having any official contacts with members or official representatives of Hamas.

In examining H.R. 4681 leading up to the vote, the bill had raised several significant questions for me: Is additional financial and political isolation the most effective means to induce changes to Hamas policy towards Israel? Will such noose-tightening prompt the Palestinian people to insist that Hamas change its policy or will it inadvertently lead to humanitarian crisis and civil unrest in the West Bank and Gaza? Will political and financial sanctions firmly aimed at Hamas serve to strengthen the role of Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate President of the PA or further radicalize Hamas while undermining the position of President Mahmoud Abbas? While these are difficult questions with which to wrestle, I eventually decided that H.R. 4681 sends an important and necessary message to PA that the United States will not tolerate a terrorist-controlled government's role in obstructing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

First, I believe H.R. 4681 provides the United States the additional leverage it needs to push Hamas toward the acceptance of Israel and the rejection of violence. The Act amends the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) by adding a new section prohibiting direct financial transfers by the United States to the PA until the President certifies that no part of the PA is controlled by a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) designated by the United States and Europe and no member of an FTO serves in a senior policy making position in the PA, the PA has publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist and recommitted itself to previous agreements and understandings with Israel and the United States, and the PA has taken effective steps and made progress toward a number of objectives including purging its security services of individuals with ties to terrorists, dismantling terrorist infrastructure, and halting anti-Israeli incitement. I believe these are reasonable and necessary benchmarks that Hamas must make in order to demonstrate its capability to be a responsible government.

Furthermore, I believe the bill's humanitarian provisions address my concern that the increased sanctions advocated by the legislation would unnecessarily hurt the Palestinian people. Make no mistake, I do not believe that the Palestinian people should be punished for exercising their right to elect the representatives of their choice. In March 2005, Hamas accepted a temporary cease-fire with Israel in exchange for Abbas' agreement to allow the group into PA's electoral system. Throughout the process, the Bush Administration stood on the sidelines, assuming that Hamas' political participation would either transform the group or marginalize it. Indeed, Secretary Rice stated last fall that the United States had ``to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process.'' As a result, Hamas entered the field for the 2006 legislative elections. Understanding the widespread public dissatisfaction with the PA's corruption under the control of the Fatah party and the sour economy, Hamas ran on a platform of clean governance and reform, rather than ideology. Subsequently, observers widely agree that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people not for its ideological platform, but for its practical appeal in improving the day-to-day living conditions of Palestinians.

I strongly believe Palestinians should not be punished for exercising their Democratic choice in electing their representatives. Yet, with nearly 50 percent of the PA's residents living below the poverty line, unemployment on the rise, and government salaries already not being paid, Hamas' ongoing pursuit of extremist rhetoric demonstrates to me the party's inability to put the interests of the Palestinian people above its terrorist ideology and its unwillingness to govern in a responsible manner. I believe H.R. 4681, which provides an exception to the restrictions for basic human needs such as food, water, medicine, and sanitation services and allows the President to provide other targeted democracy or rule of law assistance, strikes a balance in both pressuring Hamas but also ensuring that necessary assistance reaches the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.

Finally, I believe the approach of economic and diplomatic isolation of Hamas will help strengthen the position of PA President Mahmoud Abbas and lead to the creation of pragmatic, reform-minded activists and parties. H.R. 4681 has been amended to allow for exceptions to the ban on direct assistance permitting the United States to maintain an open dialogue with President Abbas. It allows the president to use a national security waiver to provide assistance to the office of the PA president for non-security expenses directly related to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or for the personal security detail of the PA president. Emboldened by U.S. and Israeli opposition to Hamas, Abbas recently announced that it will call a national referendum on accepting a Palestinian state alongside Israel that would implicitly recognize Israel's right to exist. Abbas is ready and willing to demonstrate to the international community that there is a Palestinian partner for negotiations with Israel, and the United States should seize this opportunity to continue press for a breakthrough in long-stalled peace efforts.

I sincerely hope that H.R. 4681 will play a constructive role to secure permanent peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where Dr. Jamie Thompson and his team of scientists were the first to derive and culture human embryonic stem cells in a lab.

Embryonic stem cells open up the possibility of dramatic new medical treatments, transplantation therapies and cures. But on August 9, 2001, the hope and promise of this research was greatly curtailed by this administration's severe restrictions on Federal research dollars.

Last year, I was proud to fight for the passage of H.R. 810, a bill that opens up Federal research dollars to stem cells derived from donated embryos. One year has gone by since the House passed that bill. It is time for the Senate to act. We can no longer tie the hands of our scientists. We need to unlock the promise that this research holds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2231, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, and I ask my colleagues to work with me to pass this important legislation.

Last Sunday was Mother's Day, and in honor of all mothers, I rise today to stand with the National Breast Cancer Coalition and the 3 million American women living with breast cancer today to urge all my colleagues to push for passage of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act--H.R. 2231. Too many mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters are dying from breast cancer. We will not end this disease until we find out what causes it.

It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors. However, there is little consensus in the scientific community on how the environment impacts breast cancer. Studies have explored the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields, but in most cases there is no conclusive evidence. Furthermore, there are many other factors that are suspected to play a role but have not been fully studied.

Clearly, more research needs to be done to determine the relationship between the environment and breast cancer. What is needed is a collaborative, comprehensive, national strategy to study these issues. H.R. 2231 makes that strategy possible.

This bill would create a new mechanism for environmental health research. It would establish up to eight research centers to study environmental factors and their impact on breast cancer. Modeled after the successful Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, it would include consumer advocates in the peer review and programmatic review process.

This Federal commitment is critical for the overall, national strategy and the long-term research investments needed to discover potential environmental causes of breast cancer, so that we can prevent it, treat it more effectively, and cure it.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2231, and I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this bill this year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 2567.

Mr. Speaker, it has really been clear from day one that the Medicare part D prescription drug program was planned with the best interests of drug companies and insurance companies but not seniors in mind.

This plan was wrongfully conceived, and then poorly implemented so that seniors had to struggle to understand a confusing mass of plans, prices and protocols.

As we approach the deadline by which seniors must enroll in a plan or be faced forever more with a financial penalty, it is obvious that we need a new prescription for progress.

Just last week, a GAO report found that the information about the part D benefit provided by CMS through the hotline and handbooks and their Web site was full of errors. We should not penalize seniors for a poorly designed program which was poorly implemented.

Mr. Speaker, we must change this deadline now and allow seniors adequate time to study their options and choose the drug plan that best fits their needs. Instead of passing this meaningless resolution, we should pass legislation to extend the deadline and truly help seniors.

Mr. Speaker, recently I made a difficult decision in voting against H.R.

282, the Iran Sanctions Act, a bill that I co-sponsored. I based my vote on the significant changes the International Relations Committee made to the underlying bill, many of which I believe are counter- productive to the U.S. efforts to deter Iran from its nuclear ambitions. It is also a reflection of my strong concerns, based on numerous recent and credible reports, that the Administration is actively exploring and studying a number of military options against Iran. The significant alterations made to H.R. 282 in Committee and the changing political circumstances informed my decision to vote against this legislation.

I want to outline several changes made to H.R. 282 that I oppose. Specifically, H.R. 282 was amended to include a brand new section requiring the president to impose sanctions under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 against any ``agency or instrumentality'' of a foreign government investing $20 million or more in the development of Iran's oil or gas industry. The president is also required to publish in the Federal Register a list of all U.S. and foreign entities that have invested more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector retroactive to August 5, 1996. I believe such a heavy-handed approach targeting foreign investment in the oil or gas industry is misguided. The Department of State, in a letter to the House International Relations Committee, has stated that H.R. 282 impairs our government's ability to work with our allies in pursuit of a diplomatic solution in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Rather than encouraging a collaborative process with our colleagues at the U.N. Security Council, this bill penalizes them. I believe this new prohibition, which was not part of H.R. 282 at the time I co-sponsored it, hinders our ability to proactively work with our partners in responding to the challenges imposed by Iran.

In addition, I am very troubled by a new provision of the bill, incorporated by the International Relations Committee, which purports to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It contains the following ``finding'' of Congress: ``Iran has manipulated Article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to acquire technologies needed to manufacture nuclear weapons under the guise of developing peaceful nuclear technology.'' [Emphasis added.] I find this language troubling. The finding states a conclusion that Iran is seeking to manufacture nuclear weapons as it pursues the development of nuclear power generation. I fear that this or a subsequent Administration could use such finding to justify an invasion or other military action against Iran, under its doctrine of preemption. Prior to its 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Administration cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as one of its bases for taking this country into war. A Congressional finding that Iran is seeking to manufacture nuclear weapons could provide a basis for the Administration to conduct preemptive strikes or declare war against Iran. I believe Congress should not, once again, provide cover to this Administration, which has shown ample evidence of incompetence in the collection of intelligence on the development of weapons of mass destruction by foreign nations. A Congressional ``finding'' is no substitute for reliable intelligence on the status of Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Speaker, much has changed in the months between the introduction of H.R. 282 and our floor debate last week. Iran abandoned its voluntary suspension of enrichment-related activities at the beginning of this year. Subsequently the U.N. Security Council called for Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported just last week that Tehran's work on enriching uranium was accelerating even as it continued to block inspectors' attempts to learn more about the troubling parts of the program. The United States is now engaged in the difficult task of persuading the U.N. Security Council to order an end to Iran's nuclear program. Aggressive diplomatic efforts with our allies are now more critical than ever. Yet, recent reports, including a detailed article by Seymour Hersh published in the New Yorker, suggest that the Administration is planning to pursue military options, including the use of nuclear weapons, against Iran to prevent its acquisition and development of atomic warheads. News articles have also disclosed that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites. The Administration's apparent pursuit of a nuclear option before diplomatic efforts have run their course is not only irresponsible, it is simply wrong. Passing H.R. 282, as amended in Committee, at this critical juncture not only appears to represent Congress' acquiescence in this Administration's foolhardy tendency to plan for war without diplomacy, it risks validating the Administration's go-it-alone approach in chasing a military solution to Iran's nuclear ambition.

Make no mistake; I believe the threat imposed by Iran must be addressed swiftly and skillfully, but through diplomatic means. I supported the underlying goals of the Iran-Libya sanctions Act enacted in 1996 that sought to deter private foreign investment in Iran's energy sector. But much has changed between the time when I signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 282 and the time I was asked to vote on it, both with regard to the substance of the bill and the political climate surrounding the issue. At a time when the House of Representatives should be putting our full support behind multilateral diplomacy and efforts to persuade the U.N. Security Council to act decisively, we passed a bill that would further alienate our allies and give cover for a military attack by this Administration. For these reasons, I could not, in good conscience, vote for this bill that I once supported. It is my sincere hope that the Senate will take a much more balanced approach that would truly strengthen, not hinder, the interests of our diplomatic efforts in addressing Iran's nuclear threat.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight during Cover the Uninsured Week to draw attention to a national crisis. According to the Census Bureau, 45.8 million Americans are without health insurance. Millions more encounter a health care system that is inadequate in meeting their basic medical needs because they are underinsured.

The Commonwealth Fund recently released a study estimating that there are an additional 16 million Americans who are underinsured, meaning their insurance does not adequately protect them against catastrophic health care expenses. That means that 61 million Americans either have no health insurance or have only sporadic coverage or have insurance coverage that leaves them exposed to very high health costs. Sixty-one million Americans is nearly 20 percent of all Americans. That is one in five Americans who have inadequate or no health care coverage at all.

The lack of affordable, comprehensive health care affects every congressional district in this Nation. To highlight the issue and the real impact that being uninsured has on the lives of Americans, I have selected some letters that I have received from my constituents who have had difficulty obtaining and affording comprehensive health care coverage.

Too often here in Congress we speak of health care issues in the antiseptic jargon of policymakers and lawyers, but people across America are hurting and these letters tell their stories in their own words.

I represent a district in south central Wisconsin, and while the letters I read may be from Wisconsinites, they speak to the difficulties people all over the United States face every day. I am going to start with a few letters about the ever-increasing price of health care.

Eva from Madison, Wisconsin writes, ``I am contacting you in regards to my desperate need for public health care. I am a grad student. I recently sprained my ankle playing soccer and had to go to the emergency room for x-rays. My bill came out to $1,242.50 because I can only afford a measly insurance that only has catastrophic coverage. This is a ridiculous amount of money for such a visit, and it causes me to consider those less fortunate than me who have even more serious injuries and less familial support. This cost can truly make waves in the lives of people.''

Suzanne from Stoughton, Wisconsin writes, ``It is time, time to have the government deal with health care. We are covered under COBRA which will run out in March. The cost is going from $500 per month to $900 per month. We checked with Blue Cross and they refuse us coverage because of a preexisting condition. They will not even offer a waiver for this preexisting condition. We checked with the Wisconsin State insurance program which will cover us for $1,200 a month. Please, let people over 60 buy into Medicare. It is impossible to find a job that offers health insurance.''

Roberta from Janesville, Wisconsin writes, ``I think the insurance bills for both medical and dental are horrendous. Both my husband and I work full time with two small children, living paycheck to paycheck. My insurance costs have caused us many heartaches with us owing more money than what needs to be paid. As a result, I will not get a needed medical procedure done. Something drastically needs to change in the United States of America where hardworking individuals and families can get the treatment they need without going broke.''

Roberta brings up an important point in her letter because people without health insurance are often not getting the care that they need. A recent study released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that cost prevented 41.1 percent of uninsured adults from seeing a doctor that they needed to see.

But getting needed care is also difficult for Americans who have health insurance because the financial strain resulting from high health care costs, rising premiums, and increasing copays and deductibles place an incredible strain on American families, often forcing them to choose between needed health care and basic necessities like food. It is no wonder that illness, injury, and medical debt is responsible for nearly 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies in the United States.

Patricia from Madison, Wisconsin writes, ``We need to fix health care. I have to choose between heat and food and medications. I have lost 80 pounds because of this. Please help.''

Heather from Waterloo, Wisconsin writes, ``I am married, and together with my husband I own a home. We live a modest, middle-class life, managing to always have what we need except for health care coverage. My husband has excellent health care at his job, but for me to also be covered by his plan, we would need to pay nearly $400 a month. That is two-thirds as much as our

home mortgage. Through school, I have worked less and less in order to maintain health coverage. I have only been able to afford short-term major medical coverage. I am grateful that we can afford this, but it does make a difference. Even now if I have a sore throat, I will wait for a few days to see how I feel. I will wait because if I don't need to go, I will certainly save the money. This is disturbing to me as a nursing student because I know about the importance of early treatment and prevention, and it is upsetting to me as a person because I value my health. It is unacceptable to me as a citizen because I know there are other people just like me who wait and get sicker or can't take the medications they need.''

Mr. Speaker, simply put, our health care system is failing and America knows this. Among the thousands of letters regarding health care that I receive, there is a common thread, a common theme that binds them together; and that common theme is an overwhelming frustration with a system they know just is not working and a call for us in Congress to take action.

Brad from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin writes, ``I write you today to urge you to take action on a growing crisis in America: health care. I strongly believe that we need a national health care plan to insure all Americans. My major concern with the current system is that when people attempt to obtain insurance, insurance companies refuse them because of past health history. Let's face it, insurance companies are in business to make a profit. The best way to make a profit is to insure the healthy so that you can minimize the claims you pay out and not insure those who need medical care or who may potentially need medical care.

I am 38 years old with a family of four. I currently participate in a health savings account. For all practical purposes, I pay for all of my own medical needs, including the recent birth of our daughter. I recently attempted to switch insurance providers. The insurance companies will insure me, but they will not insure my daughter for any type of treatment for her asthma for 3 years along with no drug coverage for life. The policy I was requesting had a $10,000 deductible, yet they still refused the coverage.''

Kimberly from Madison, Wisconsin writes, ``I am writing today because of my family's frustration and anxiety over health care. Although we hear a lot of rhetoric about making health care more affordable and/or more available for Americans, nothing is happening, at least not soon enough.''

``Let me briefly share our story,'' Kimberly proceeds. ``My husband recently started his own business. Obviously, it will take some time for his new company to see any profits, much less income. In the meantime, we are without health insurance. I am 5 months pregnant, and we have a 2-year-old son. Because of my pre-existing condition, we cannot buy affordable health coverage. COBRA would cost us $1,200 per month. I am currently applying for Medicaid and other forms of public assistance as a last resort. This is ridiculous.

``As someone with no insurance, I wonder what could possibly be the problem with implementing a public health care system. Oh, I have heard the horror stories about having fewer choices in doctors, longer waiting lists for procedures, and less incentive among doctors and researchers to develop new techniques. But what's most frightening to me is the chance that my son might get sick or my baby might be born with expensive complications while we are uninsured.

``I am not naive. I know that funding public health care is an issue. But is it wise to sacrifice the health and well-being of American citizens to avoid the challenge of implementing a change? I, for one, would be satisfied to pay more for goods and services if I could rest assured that my family's basic health care needs were being met.''

Victor, from Stoughton, Wisconsin writes, ``My wife can only work part time because of her health. Her employer offers a generic policy that costs only $3.97 per week and requires no background check. This policy covers basically nothing. Medical supplies, checkups, doctors visits necessary on a routine basis for my wife to survive are now not covered. My wife is uninsurable because of her health, and we have been turned down for health insurance that we have applied for. We cannot believe that this is happening.''

Ronald from Deerfield, Wisconsin writes, ``I was on COBRA insurance for 3 years, which ended this past fall. I spent from March until September trying to get private insurance, but could not because of my neck injury. I was, in effect, looked at and dismissed by 33 private insurance companies because of my pre-existing condition with my neck injury. Just imagine how you would feel after being dismissed by this many companies. I was finally insured through disability and Medicare. The sad reality of it is that if I want to try to work full time again, I cannot, because in doing so it would cost me the only insurance options I have left.

``The truth is that many other countries can and do provide equitable health insurance to all of their citizens, no matter what pre-existing condition they have or their ability to pay or what income level they have. I believe this country does have top-notch medical facilities, but not decent or equitable insurance for the poor and middle-income families.''

Susan from Bariboo, Wisconsin writes, ``I am writing you today regarding health insurance coverage for single people with no children. As of this time, I feel that I am left out of the loop in regards to this topic. I am 42, and last September I was diagnosed with breast cancer. In January of this year, the company that I worked for informed us that they would be closing down. I was laid off in December while I was out due to my cancer treatment. I have been searching for health care everywhere because my COBRA will be going up and I am on unemployment and barely able to pay the $244.76 for the coverage now. I cannot get insurance because of the breast cancer. HIRSP, which is the Wisconsin State High Risk Program, is too expensive for me to get coverage since they want 4 months of premiums up front, and as they only cover some things.

``What are single people supposed to do? We don't qualify for any government assistance because we are single. We cannot go without insurance. There are no programs to help us out. So when you are working on health care in the House of Representatives, please remember that there are other single people out there also in my shoes. I am at a crossroad because I have no avenue for assistance when it comes to health care. Come November, I will be unable to get coverage when I need it at this point in my life.''

Janet from Portage, Wisconsin writes, ``I have a 53-year-old brother who has psoriasis all over his body and arthritis that is caused by this. Three weeks ago, he fell and needs surgery on his shoulder to repair it. He has no job, no money and no insurance. We started looking for a program to help him. There are none that we can find. There is nothing to help him get his shoulder fixed. But after it heals wrong and he is disabled because of it, then there are programs to help him. They won't help him get it fixed so he could find a good job. Instead, they would rather support him for the rest of his life instead of trying to help him now.''

Gail from Janesville, Wisconsin writes, ``My husband lost his job in October of 2003. He applied for over 100 positions, only to be told that he lacked a college degree or he is overqualified, or they can only pay $8 an hour. I was diagnosed with breast cancer in June of 1998 and again in 2003. I have gone through breast cancer twice and have undergone a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery.

``COBRA has run out and without a stable income, we cannot afford to pay the premiums of our own health care policy. My husband is 59 and I am 58, and we have no medical coverage. I have looked in every insurance company and get turned down because of my medical history. All our lives we have paid into these insurance companies only to be turned away when we need coverage the most.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope that as Cover the Uninsured Week continues, my colleagues will join me in recognizing that obtaining comprehensive, affordable health care presents a very real challenge for millions and millions of Americans. We cannot turn a deaf ear on our constituents' pleas for help. I invite my colleagues to join me in

working on this most pressing domestic priority, to provide quality affordable health care for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to recognize the University of Wisconsin men's hockey team, NCAA champions for the sixth time in the program's history. This is the first national championship for the Badgers since 1990, and also the first under head coach Mike Eaves. Coach Eaves previously won a national title as a player when he was the Badgers' team captain in 1977, and also coached the United States teams to their first gold medals at the 2002 World Under-18 Championship and the 2004 World Junior Championship. Coach Eaves' latest honor is being named the head coach of the United States Men's National Team.

This championship caps off a remarkable season for the Badgers. Senior assistant captain defenseman Tom Gilbert tied for the national lead in goals by a defenseman, and scored the most points by a UW defenseman in almost ten years. Gilbert was named to the All-American second team, and was joined there by sophomore center Joe Pavelski. Pavelski led the team in scoring during the season, and also became just the ninth player in Badgers history to score 100 points in his first two years.

Junior goalie Brian Elliott was named a first-team All-American. Elliot led the nation in every significant category of goaltending statistic, including goals-against-average, save percentage, and winning percentage, en route to being named a finalist for the Hobey Baker Player of the Year award. He also recorded eight shutouts, including two in the NCAA Tournament's regional rounds, helping Elliot earn Most Outstanding Player honors for the Midwest Regional.

During the Frozen Four Championship in Milwaukee, it was Badgers' junior forward Robbie Earl who proved the Most Outstanding Player. Earl scored three goals combined in the semi-finals and finals, including the game-winning goal in the semi-final game and a tying goal in the final game.

After the Badger women's hockey team won their national championship two weeks before the men, several players joked that they had stolen for Wisconsin the title of the ``State of Hockey'' from Minnesota. After the men's team completed the NCAA hockey sweep for UW, Athletic Director Barry Alvarez put it more simply: ``We own college hockey.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University of Wisconsin women's hockey team, which on March 26 defeated the Gophers of the University of Minnesota 3-0 to claim the 2006 NCAA national championship. This is the first national championship won by the Badger women's hockey team, and in fact it is the first NCAA championship for any UW women's team since 1985. This also marks the first Division I women's hockey title won by a school outside the State of Minnesota.

The championship victory was a fitting end to an amazing year for the Badgers, which included a record 36 victories and a Patty Kazmeier National Player of the Year Award winner in junior forward Sara Bauer. The final game was also UW's fifth victory of the season in six games against the archrival Gophers, a team that had dominated the Badgers in years past.

For Badgers coach Mark Johnson, this accomplishment can stand beside his greatest as a player, including the 1977 NCAA men's championship and the ``Miracle on Ice'' 1980 Olympic gold medal. In each of his 4 years as head coach, the Badgers have set a school record for victories, showing steady improvement on the way to this year's ultimate prize.

Coach Johnson's players, of course, deserve the bulk of the credit for their own success. And during this year's tournament, no Badger star shone brighter than goaltender Jessie Vetter. A freshman from Cottage Grove, Wisconsin, Jessie allowed one goal during three tournament games. Prior to this year, no goalie had ever recorded a shutout during the women's Frozen Four. Jessie earned two, in the semi- finals and the championship. It is no surprise, then, that she was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Player.

It is, however, not an individual honor but the accomplishment of a team that I wish most to recognize today. Some of the players joked after the game that they had now stolen away from their neighbors to the west the title of ``the State of Hockey.'' Wisconsin couldn't be prouder.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the Edgerton Public Library in Edgerton, Wisconsin, on the occasion of its grand opening celebration. Housed in the Carnegie building originally built in 1907, the library is an impressive tribute to the people of Edgerton.

A public library serves as the cornerstone of democracy. A library fosters intellectual freedom and makes available to all citizens an extensive information network. In a local setting, citizens have access to global resources of information. The educational importance of a public library is immensely important in improving the community by providing access to higher learning, A library is a requirement for a cultivated democratic society.

A public library allows citizens to perform their civic duties placed upon them in our noble democratic nation. It not only provides free worldwide access to information, but also is a place where residents can obtain information about their community, and where internet access, tax forms and voter registration forms are provided. The role of the public library is essential in supporting a democratic state. The Edgerton Public Library has gone beyond its civic duty in providing these services for the public.

In spite of the many challenges they faced, the people of Edgerton were committed to this important project. I am proud to recognize the efforts of a community that created a dream and followed through to success. I join the residents of Edgerton in celebrating the grand opening of the newly expanded and renovated Edgerton Public Library and wish them the best for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise not to address the substance of this bill, but to address a matter that is most unfortunately missing from this bill. Today we consider H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005, under the suspension calendar, which, of course, means that amendments cannot be offered.

This bill encompasses H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005, which passed the House in September of 2005. When that bill was considered on the floor, a hate crimes amendment was offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and it passed by a strong bipartisan vote of 223--199. Yet despite that strong bipartisan support from the Members of this Chamber, the hate crimes provision has been stripped out of the bill before us today, and there is simply no good reason for the House to consider H.R. 4472 without hate crimes language.

One cannot fully address the issues of crime reduction and child safety without acknowledging the terrorizing impact hate-motivated violence has in

our society, especially in subjecting groups of individuals to a debilitating state of fear for their safety and security. Hate crimes reduction is violent crime reduction, and it is about keeping millions of Americans, including children, safe from hate-motivated violence.

It is a shame that by introducing an omnibus crime prevention bill and proceeding under suspension of the rules that the majority undermines the democratic process by doing an end run around hate crime prevention. I urge my colleagues to bear these facts in mind as they consider this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and work of Professor Nellie McKay of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. At the time of her death, Professor McKay was known world-wide as one of the most distinguished scholars of African-American literature.

Nellie McKay was the daughter of immigrants who sought for her the education and advancement that was denied them. She realized all their dreams and more.

After earning her doctorate in English and American literature from Harvard and teaching in Boston, Professor McKay, to the dismay of many of her friends, moved to the midwestern city of Madison. Craig Werner, the current chairman of the UW-Madison Afro-American studies department said, ``When she came here, there was not a single university that was paying any attention to black women's literature. Now, there isn't a single university that isn't.''

Professor McKay chaired the Afro-American studies department at Madison and helped turn it into the nationally recognized program that it is today. She co-edited, with Henry Louis Gates, Jr., The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, a groundbreaking work that remains a cornerstone of the genre.

Professor McKay's scholarship (more than 60 books, articles, and essays) was matched by her commitment to her students, both in and out of the classroom. She is remembered fondly as a teacher who challenged her students academically and challenged her colleagues to make the university a more welcoming place for all people. By all accounts, she succeeded at both. But she would be the first to say that her work is ongoing, to be continued, now, by others.

Nellie McKay did the unthinkable--sacrificing a department chair at Harvard, and its attendant fame, to continue living and working in Madison. We are grateful for her sacrifice and so much richer for it.

With the passing of Nellie McKay, the world has lost a great scholar and Wisconsin has lost a great teacher, citizen, and friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great sadness as our Nation mourns the passing of Coretta Scott King--the First Lady of the Civil Rights Movement.

Coretta Scott was preparing for a career in music when she met her future husband, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., while studying concert vocals at the New England Conservatory of Music. Coretta Scott became Martin Luther King, Jr.'s partner in life and in the movement.

After the assassination of her husband in Memphis, on April 4, 1968, Coretta Scott King never lost sight of the dream that Dr. King had so powerfully articulated. She dedicated her life to seeing that her husband's work was continued and his legacy protected--all while raising four children. She established the King Center, a living memorial in Atlanta, and successfully worked to establish a Federal holiday in King's honor.

I have always admired Coretta Scott King's remarkable strength and grace. I am inspired by the depth of her commitment to equality and peace. Coretta Scott King did not waiver in her quest for justice even in the face of violence--as when the King's Montgomery home was bombed. Because of her strength and tenacity, she leaves this world a better place.

We have lost one of our great leaders. The thought of a joyous reunion of partners separated far too soon, softens our sadness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the sesquicentennial of the city of Middleton, WI.

While first inhabited by Native Americans, then home to French fur traders and, later, English and German settlers, the area we now call Middleton marks its official birth with the arrival of the railroad there in 1856.

The history of this vibrant community is well-documented. We know of the fur-trading post opened in 1832 by the area's first carpenter, Michael St. Cyr. Records tell us of Orson Cook, the first permanent settler in the East Middleton area in 1841. The name, Middleton, we are told, was chosen by the first postmaster, Harry Barnes, after a town in Vermont.

The settlements of Pheasant Branch, East Middleton, Middleton Station and others coalesced when the train depot became a hub around which local businesses prospered.

One hundred fifty years after the first trains arrived, Middleton's downtown is thriving. New businesses are rising in the footprints of the old. The people of this 21st century community are still guided by the ``good neighbor'' practices of those who came before.

The current residents of Middleton treasure historic structures of the past: the Old Stamm House, once a station on the ``underground railroad''; the Blacksmith Shop on Branch Street; Arneson's Cafe on Parmenter Street where folks could collect mail on one side and buy stationery and sweets on the other, to name just a few.

But they are also looking to the future, supporting a superb public library, a dynamic senior center, a community pool, and a performing arts center. Though barely miles from the State capital, the people of Middleton cede no civic pride or responsibility. Volunteers sustain and support emergency services and community functions.

On its sesquicentennial, I salute the city of Middleton and its people and wish them many more years of prosperity.